Voters will vote in November on whether to have a constitutional convention in2011.
Cost of the convention will be approx $28 million.
Citizens will run for delegate slots and if elected will have the right to amend or totally redo our state constitution.
Last time we did this was 1962.
Should we pass this proposal? Why?
What are the major issues the delegates should address if we pass 10-1?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am not a resident of Michigan so I can't represent what Michigan residents really want. In my view though, a convention would be a good thing, even with the price tag. Thomas Jefferson did suggest that the constitution be re-constructed every generation. I don't know all of the issues that would be brought up when a new constitution is being drafted, but I for one think the clause defining marriage between "one man and one women" to encroach on 1st amendment rights to "freely associate with persons in intimate relationships."
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is a good idea at all. Why fix something that isn't broken. We haven't changed the constitution since 1962 for a reason, there's nothing wrong with it. Obviously as generations change and morals begin to adapt, amendments are going to need to be made, but overall the foundations of our constitution should remain the same. Not to mention our Country is in enough debt as it is...the last thing we need is to spend another unnecessary $28 million.
ReplyDeleteCurrently I am a resident of michigan and see the idea of a constitutional convention very beneficial. i believe that by having a convention people can get involved and become knowledgeable about the state constitution and its laws. Coming from a citizen and also a resident of this state I believe that if someone has a problem with one law or think it needs to be changed, they should get involved. Some people might say that the 28 million dollar expense would be pretty pricy and unnecessary for that price but our country spends way more on unnecessary things. This is a chance for the American people to speak out and learn.
ReplyDeleteI believe the amendment would be good. We could take the loss and make our constitution better for the future. so many things can be reformed in order to save the state money.
ReplyDeleteI think that a constitutional convention is an unnecessary expense for the state of Michigan at this time. At this current point in time, I believe that our economy is in worse shape than our constitution. If the citizens of Michigan think that there are laws that need to be updated in order to be more modern, there are still actions that they can take to get them amended that do not require a complete, expensive upheaval of the constitution.
ReplyDeleteI believe a a constitutional convention at this time would be a complete waste of time and money. Do we really have so many problems with our constitution that we should waste $28,000,000 on fixing it? There are other more cost effective methods we can use to advance this document into our current moral and generational standards. Our legislatures and executives are there for a reason. I believe that those resources should utilized to their fullest extent before we even consider a constitutional convention. On another note, I believe giving absolute power to a minority group of people to amend or completely change the current constitution is dangerous.
ReplyDeleteIn a rough economic time like this, where Michigan's deficit is nearly a billion dollars, I think it is foolish to consider a constitutional convention that costs 28 million.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that it could revamp and rejuvenate the state, my concern would be where the $28 million is going to come from and what cuts will have to be made to fund it.
If a constitutional convention is voted for by Michigan residents, I believe that economic reform would be one of the biggest issues. As of Winter/Spring of 2010, the State of the State Survey suggests that 56.7% of those surveyed believe that the economy/unemployment/work/wages to be the biggest issues. Behind that at 12.9% is economic growth/stimulating the economy.
State of the State Survey:
http://www.ippsr.msu.edu/SOSS/SOSS55Presentation.pdf
A constitution convention could possibly what we need to direct laws and policy to getting Michigan out of the rut that we are currently in politically and economically. Although I don't think we should go in the convention blinded, we should have a agenda and purpose, other then just changing it. Since Michigan had their last convention in 1962, which is recent compared to some states, giving it a good foundation. If we don't have one this time, then the next time it comes up it should be conducted. It's expensive but could be very beneficial.
ReplyDeleteThe state budget is already bad enough right now with all sorts of budget cuts. We can't afford to have a constitutional convention right now eventhough it would be a great thing for the state but it is not a priority right now.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that at this time having a constitutional convention is unnecessary. As stated by many of the comments above the financial deficit that we are already facing upon entering the upcoming election should take precedence in voting matters. An extra $28 million dollars is not an easy amount to come up with out of the state budget.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of our state constitution I do not believe that there are too many issues that need to be reviewed right now. Most of the issues concerning Michigan citizens currently surround the economic problems.These are issues that would be more quickly resolved by the legislature. Ironically, hosting a convention may actually hurt our economic situation more.
Most of the other issues facing citizens right now such as same sex marriage, health care, and the war in Iraq are federal issues which we could not change by amending our State Constitution either way.
I am a resident of Michigan and michigan pretty much owns me so I will say this I do think it would be a great idea to amend the Michigan constitution but 28 million dollars is a lot for us to pay so if it did happen we would have to make sure that the huge technicalitys in our system woul be fixed. For instance the Michigan Department of Corrections could use some work. We are overcrowded with prisoners and there is only one womans prison in Michigan. We have all these non-violent offenders that are locked up and the state could offer other options les expensive than prison. A good option: treatment, SAI cassidy lake prison bootcamp last i checked the beds where open. There are many other things that also need to be addressed but that is just one parolees opinion.
ReplyDeleteI keep seeing the price tag attached to this constitutional convention. I know that $28 million is a lot of money, but in comparison to over $300 billion wasted in health care fraud a year(Reuters) it isn't that much. The only question really should be, Does the Michigan Constitution need to be amended/
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe changing the Michigan state constitution would be reckless and unnecessary. As stated by Danielle Lawrence, "why fix something that isn't broken?" I believe making small amendments to the constitution to better it would be wiser than taking 28 million dollars to scrap an already working constitution.
ReplyDeleteEven if we do not consider the price of this convention I do not believe that very many issues actually relating to the Michigan constitution have been addressed that need to be changed.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of changing the corrections system is a very great concept. In terms of the constitution, however, there are not many places that would need to be changed. Bills passed by the legislature and changes in the budget could easily make small changes to the corrections department in the right direction.
If we are only considering changing a few clauses like the marriage clause of the constitution we could do this as a state through legislative proposal or initiative. I think that there are definitely a select few issues the citizens could change, however, I am not sure if a full convention is necessary to make these changes.
personally, I'm not a Michigan resident, so my opinion here is mostly just what I see from my experience living here. But I think that Michigan voters need to take a long hard look at their state and local government and figure out where the problem is. Personally I'm seeing a lot problems with the way Michigan interacts and encourages grow in the private sector. Also, I think that perhaps a con con would be a way for Michigan to restructure itself financially. So even though this would be costly, they could use the convention as a way to restructure Michigan to anticipate the 2 billion dollars they will need to cut this year. And maybe, they could look at what goes into the cost of a convention like this and see if there was a way to cut the hefty price tag of a con con. I'm sure it wouldn't be by much, but every little bit would help. Finally, I think a con con would be a great morale booster for Michigan residents like it was in the 60's. It can make them feel like their government is working for them and really making a tangible change in hopes for improvement. So I'm not a resident but I think a con con would be a pretty good choice for Michigan voters.
ReplyDeleteAlthough expensive, I do believe that the Constitutional Convention would be a good idea. It would be the perfect opportunity for the people of Michigan to come together and make changes or amendments to their constitution and address people's concerns. If people really want to be involved or have a change that they think would benefit their state, then this would be the opportunity for them to do so and I say if the people really do want this convention and can get themselves organized to do so, then why not. And even in terms of expense, some of the money would be going back into the state. The businesses hired to set up the convention would hopefully be from Michigan and therefore would be benefiting from the convention. The cycling of the money nay even help Michigan's economy.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this proposal to amend or ratify our state constitution would be beneficial for us not only from an individuals standpoint, but from a larger, state wide standpoint as well. Although being pricey, the hopes that a ratification or complete re-writing of our state constitution would produce an outcome of a stronger, and more economically sound state could be just what we need in these times of struggle. Some major issues that I believe need to be taken into consideration if passed would be first of all, the corrections program and over population of prisons, and second of all, the taxation and legalization of marijuana in the state of Michigan. If we were to ratify both of these large issues to start off with, our state would not only be saving millions of dollars by clearing out penitentiaries of people who don't deserve to be there along with also keeping people out, but also generating tax dollars for the state by benefiting off of the already multi-billion dollar marijuana business that already exists with no money being made from it by the state itself. Even though these issues are controversial, it could be what we need as a state to get us out of the hole we are in.
ReplyDeleteRobert Adams
Despite the benefits that could arise from holding a Constitutional Convention, I am still skeptical that the $28 million dollar price tag associated with it is really worth it.
ReplyDeleteI feel that most reforms that are needed, can and should be done through the normal legislative process. It seems likely that most of the Constitution would remain the same despite a Con Con.
At Dr. Charles Ballard's presentation last year, I learned that the state of Michigan is highly under-invested in education, training, and skill from pre-school all the way to Ph.D.
What the State of Michigan needs is an investment in education, which leads to the ultimate investment in the future of our state.
Link to Dr. Ballard's Presentation:
http://mediasite.nmu.edu/NMUMediasite/SilverlightPlayer/Default.aspx?peid=b7b04f9a433c4188915901937e695c86
I see the money as only a deterrent from this plan not the main reason why we shouldn't do it. Why fix something that's not broken? We have no need to amend the state constitution? Unless a real problem has arose, making it necessary for a change, I think it's foolish to mess with it. The fact that it would cost 28 million just makes the idea ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't vote to have a constitutional convention. I don't think the constitution would change very much for the amount of money it would cost (although, $28 million isn't that high nowadays). There are things I would personally like to change, like the definition of marriage to allow for same sex marriage, or taking out the right to gun ownership, but those are things Michigan residents can tackle on their own through amendments, maybe switching the way public universities' boards are elected. Part of me wishes there was less in the constitutional, and more legislation that had to be reviewed every five, ten or fifteen years, but for now I think the constitution can stand as is.
ReplyDeleteAs a resident of Michigan I would oppose a constitutional convention. Although it has not taken place since 1962 i think this would be a costly adventure to the already declining Michigan economy. A constitutional convention is simply called by the state legislature to help reform the constitution, but there are several other ways to amending our state constitution such as legislative proposals, constitutional initiatives or constitutional commissions. I do not feel as though the proposal 10-1 should be passed. It would take more money which we do not have to change or amend our constitution. I do not feel that our state constitution is lacking it is our representatives and governor at the state level that needs to be fixed or the policies surrounding them need changing.
ReplyDeleteI agree most with the thinking of a non-Michigan resident, Connie. I am willing to invest in our state to get us going in a positive, SUSTAINABLE direction.
ReplyDeleteAn Analogy: My mom has had a lot of health problems. For years, she was going from specialist to specialist, trying to figure out why she was feeling awful all the time. She was doing this while continuing to go about her life in her normal trajectory. But she wasn't getting any lasting solutions: a medicine to help one symptom was making another worse, new symptoms would pop up as a result, etc. She needed a different approach to her health because these were only temporary solutions. Finally, she went to Mayo Clinic where all of her health problems were taken into consideration by a team of medical experts who looked at the bigger picture. They diagnosed her with chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia, diagnoses that would not have been possible if she wouldn't have gotten this holistic, systemic look at her health. From this she was able to reassess her life choices and come up with creative, sustainable solutions to her health problems.
Just as the health of my mother cannot be viewed in a symptom-by-symptom approach, the failing of Michigan's economy cannot be sustainably addressed through an agency-by-agency approach. Our world, our nation and our state have undergone EXTENSIVE changes since 1962. Our current problems are systemic. We chug ahead on an outdated and decidedly short-sighted economic model of governance. It is no longer a viable economic strategy to rely on the Big Three in Detroit to carry our state; to run our prisons as we do; to allow an outside company bring in outside jobs to exploit our state's resources in the short-term; and on and on.
We are situated in the future of resource protection and management: the fresh water of the Great Lakes. Either we can morn the death of a dinosaur industry reliant upon a resource that will invariable run out and try to resuscitate it for a few more decades, OR we can start looking at ways to tap into the incredible potential of our state's resources - human and natural.
To be damn sure, I am not advocating opening the floodgates to allow the rampant, unregulated exploitation of our resources by state and private business. On the contrary: we have to revamp, restructure and revitalize those agencies responsible for making smart, long-term and sustainable resource management decisions. Our DRNE/DEQ are incredibly underfunded, understaffed, overworked and essentially impotent. But these are without question the defining agencies of a future "green economy." We don't need jobs that will be gone in 15 years and leave us with the gutted skeleton of a resource that could've been preserved in a way to ensure (re)use.
As a future educator (hopefully in Michigan), I am very nervous about the current trends in public education. The problems are cancerous and rampantly spreading to more school districts with greater severity. A holistic, long-term look needs to happen in this sector and many others in order to get our state heading in a positive direction. This is an issue that MUST be addressed if a constitutional convention takes place - pas de question.
We can't let desperation cloud our judgment. We have seen time and again the inability of our governing bodies to get past entrenched partisan politics and special interest influences. We need a new mission statement - one that transcends these frivolous roadblocks that eat away at our confidence in the capacity of our government to function based upon what is best for our state.
I don't want to leave Michigan: I've grown up exploring our natural beauties, loving our unfailingly friendly Midwestern residents, investing in local materials, crafts and services and sustaining myself on the bounties of Michigan-made food. Because of this, I am willing without hesitation to support this opportunity to come together as a state to begin the process of cultivating a healthier future.
As a resident of Michigan, but also a Illinois native, I would have to say based on Michigan's already declining economy that a Constitutional Convention would hurt, but could help. This is an argument that can be argued both ways, rather then one way. Michigan needs to analyze the issues that the government is having and fix them. Doing so they could unite the state causing to everyone work together to get Michigan back on the map, as one of the major states in the USA (When the Ford factory was booming).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Connie in the sense that it would be a morale booster for the people of Michigan and would help to remind them that their government works for them, and not the other way around. I did not take this into consideration when I wrote my first comment about this topic and am now reconsidering whether or not it's a bad idea. Both have their positives and negatives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ivana on the fact that social issues can be addressed through ballot proposals/amendments. I am not sure the economic overhaul needed in our state can effectively be done through this sort of legislative action. We've got a bad model of drawing in, selecting and processing those economic opportunities that come our way. We're relying on short-term and short-sighted industries/projects. As I've said, we need a new mission statement.
ReplyDeleteYes, $28 Million is a LOT of money but the truth is that things have tremendously changed since 1962. I don't think that anything is necessarily wrong with the State's constitution but the State of Michigan was hit hard during this recession and during hard times we can sometimes find better solutions to things. I think that taking a step back to re-evaluate the constitution and hopefully make some new changes for the better certainly cannot leave us worse off than we already are. Why keep doing things the same way if they are not necessarily working.
ReplyDeleteAaron Nevel,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that residents should get more involved in policy making, but they are electing a person to reflect their views at the Convention. I hear all the time how disappointed people are with the people they've voted for acting differently once in office, not following through, making concessions. Will it really give voters a louder voice then they do already (considering that amendments can be used to reshape the Constitution).
Also, has anyone found information on why the Constitutional Convention is so expensive?
Holding a constitutional convention is an ambitious and idealistic goal that would be reasonable in sound economic times. However, $28 million would be better spent on creating jobs, increasing funding for aid programs, or luring businesses to the state. Such a princely sum would go a long way toward bolstering programs like the 21st Century Jobs Fund. According to michigan.gov, the fund has created or retained over 24,000 jobs and assisted almost 1,500 companies.
ReplyDeleteFrom Governor Granholm, in the Detroit News:
ReplyDelete“The state of Michigan is dramatically different than it was in 1961, and we need a foundation document that reflects the 21st century. Having a constitutional convention would help set the stage for a streamlined government that moves Michigan forward in a comprehensive way.”
The article also said:
"A convention could put a host of issues on the table, including education finance, the state’s tax structure and consolidation of school districts and municipal governments. Also up for discussion could be amendments passed by voters that outlaw gay marriage, ban some affirmative action programs and approve embryonic stem cell research."
I've searched and searched for information about why the convention would cost so much and this is all I've found:
- it would cost either $28 million or $45 million, depending on which party you're listening to
- delegates will be paid $1.00 a month for their services during the convention
I agree with MacreaAnderson's statement that our constitution is not so flawed that the only way to fix it is to spend such a large amount of money. I also agree with the fact the our professional legislature is there for a reason. A convention is very unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteI love Callie's post. You can't deny the fact that we live in a state that has been through some tough times and that things are much different today. In the sixties the auto industry was huge and quite frankly that is not how it is today, we cannot continue to go down the same path if things around us have been changing.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is a lot of money to spend, and could be put towards many other uses, I think that it could be a good opportunity to reflect on and address some fundamental structural aspects of MI government.
ReplyDeleteThere are good arguments for and against the proposal. Personally, I'm not sure what the best way to address MI's problems, but we have to do it some how. Polls seem to be inconclusive. Granholm supports it as well as Sen. Tom George. I agree with Granholm that we need to modernize MI's Constitution and shift away from the "manufacturing-based economic model" which she says no longer exists.
ReplyDelete(http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Michigan_Constitutional_Convention,_Proposal_1_%282010%29)
I agree with Brian C that 28 million dollars is a lot and that it could be put towards other issues, but the fact that a constitutional re-write being a good opportunity to amend our needs is also true. I believe that if majority is for it, Michigan could have a chance to bring itself out of the gutter.
ReplyDeleteOf course our environment is different now than it was decades ago, but do we really need a convention to enact real change? I think we can figure out a way to "streamline our government" without holding a big, expensive meeting.
ReplyDeletei do not believe i agree with robert adams because how can we justify spending 28 million dollars for changes that may or may not take place, these changes in the amendments may or may not take place and then we spent money that we do not have! Ratifying the constitution with a convention would be a win/lose situation in my eyes.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with danielle lawrence. I do agree about not having a constitutional convention but not for the reason that if it's not broken, don't fix it. I don't believe this is the right attitude to go after government. There should always be a strive to make thing better, not wait until they don't work anymore.
ReplyDeleteBrvanden we should fix it before it's broken to the extent that it can't be fixed without serious consequence. But I do think that there should be an agenda, not just going into the convention with no real end goal. If we were going to have a convention; topics, issues, amendments should have already been gathered and reviewed. This way it won't be drawn out. The price is high, but if the benefits weigh heavier then the cost, then I say do it!
ReplyDelete